was a naturalized South African citizen of British origin who had not disguised his antipathy for the apartheid policies in force in Namibia. He had been warned by the South African Government in March 1975 that it would take action if he persisted in political activities.

In an effort to have the expulsion order rescinded or stayed, the United States Ambassador in Pretoria presented an aide-memoire on June 21, 1975, to the South African Foreign Minister stating the importance which the United States Government attaches to the protection afforded by international law against arbitrary treatment, including the procedural rights which the expelling state should accord to the individuals concerned. The U.S. Embassy's aide-memoire of June 21, 1975, stated in substantive part:

The Government of the United States has been made aware of the order of expulsion issued on June 16, 1975, by the South West Africa Legislative Assembly, under authority of the Undesirables Removal Proclamation (1920), against an American citizen, Mrs. Cathleen Wood, and her husband, Bishop Richard Wood, from the territory of Namibia. The order directs Mrs. Wood and her husband to leave Namibia not later than noon on June 23, 1975. To the best of our knowledge, Mrs. Wood and her husband have not been informed of the reasons for their expulsion nor given a hearing at which they might contest the actions taken against them.

The Government of the United States wishes to reiterate to the Government of South Africa its views, which have been communicated to your Government before, on the subject of deportation. While the Government of the United States generally recognizes the right of a sovereign state to exclude or expel aliens from territory under its control, such expulsion may not, consistent with generally accepted principles of international law, be effected in a manner that violates minimum standards of protection which must be afforded each individual. The Government of the United States believes that expulsions which, inter alia, are arbitrary or do not afford the individual sufficient opportunity to safeguard his or her property or family violate international law. International law also requires that, to protect such fundamental rights as freedom from discriminatory and arbitrary treatment, the expelling state must accord the individual concerned certain procedural rights, including provision for adequate notice of the specific reasons for the expulsion and opportunity for the individual (and his or her government) to have a hearing on and respond to allegations underlying the deportation.

It is the opinion of the Government of the United States that these obligations are significantly augmented, in the case of expulsions from the territory of Namibia, by the peculiar international character of that territory under international law. In particular, the Government of the United States wishes to

repeat its view, which we have previously brought to the attention of the Government of South Africa, that the application of the Undesirables Removal Proclamation (1920) in the territory of Namibia violates the obligations of the Government of South Africa under international law to withdraw its administration from the territory and to respect the rights of the territory's inhabitants. We therefore consider that expulsions from the territory made under the authority of that Proclamation are unlawful.

The Government of the United States requests the Government of South Africa to inform it of the specific reasons for the expulsion of Mrs. Wood and her husband from the territory of Namibia. The Government of the United States urges the Government of South Africa to rescind the expulsion order issued against Mrs. Wood and her husband, or to stay it pending their being afforded adequate notice of the specific charges on the basis of which they have been directed to leave the territory of Namibia, and given a meaningful opportunity to be heard on the substance of those charges.

Bishop Wood renounced his South African citizenship and departed Namibia before the expulsion order became effective. On June 25, 1975, his wife, who had remained in Namibia, was arrested and placed on an airplane to Johannesburg. She subsequently rejoined her husband.

On June 27, 1975, the United States Ambassador delivered a second aide-memoire to the South African Government. It reiterated the legal points of the earlier demarche and protested the forcible expulsion of Mrs. Wood without stated cause. The following is the substantive portion of the aide-memoire:

The Government of the United States wishes to express its displeasure at the forcible expulsion of an American citizen, Mrs. Cathleen Wood, from the territory of Namibia. The Government of the United States wishes to reiterate the points it made in an aide-memoire delivered to the Department of Foreign Affairs on June 21; namely, that international law requires a state proposing to expel an alien lawfully present in territory under the state's control, to accord the alien certain procedural guarantees including rights of notification of the charges against him on the basis of which he is to be expelled, and of a significant opportunity to be heard on and to defend himself against those charges; and that the Government of the United States considers the application of the Undesirables Removal Proclamation (1920), as amended, in the territory of Namibia to be illegal under international law. The Government of the United States further states its belief on evidence currently available to it that there were no legitimate grounds on which the Government of the Republic of South Africa could have expelled Mrs. Wood from the territory of Namibia as her activities there gave no cause for removal.

The Government of the United States wishes to express its disappointment that Mrs. Wood was forcibly removed from the territory of Namibia while the Government of the United States was awaiting a reply from the Government of the Republic of South Africa to its aide-memoire delivered on June 21, requesting that the Government of the United States be informed of the reasons for issuance of the orders of expulsion, and that the orders of expulsion against Mrs. Wood and her husband be rescinded or stayed pending their being granted their rights of notice and hearing. The Embassy of the United States had been assured by officials of the Government of the Republic of South Africa that it would receive a reply to its aide-memoire. The Government of the United States finds it unfortunate that the Embassy had not received a reply to its requests, and was not informed of the action to be taken, before the authorities of the Government of the Republic of South Africa in the territory of Namibia forcibly expelled Mrs. Wood from the territory on June 25.

On July 17, 1975, the South African Government delivered a note in reply, denying the existence of a requirement under international law to accord the procedural rights referred to by the United States, "especially in cases where the security of the state is involved."

The South African note stated in substantive part:

Bishop Wood was a South African citizen when the expulsion order was served on him. It follows that the United States Government has no jurisdiction over him and consequently no right or duty under international law to intercede on his behalf. There is, however, no objection to informing the Embassy that in ordering Bishop Wood's expulsion, the Administrator (not the Legislative Assembly, as stated in the aide-memoire) acted properly within the lawful powers conferred upon him by the Undesirables Removal Proclamation, 1920, inasmuch as he was satisfied that Bishop Wood's continued presence in the territory was contrary to the best interests of its inhabitants. Bishop Wood had, over the years, involved himself in political rather than in church matters to such an extent that his presence served to undermine the peace, order and good government of the territory. In fact, on two occasions the Hon. the Prime Minister took the matter up with the Archbishop in Cape Town.

In the case of Mrs. Wood, an American citizen, it should be pointed out that her admission to and presence in South West Africa was conditional upon her husband's presence there. His expulsion effectively removed the only legitimate reason for her continued residence in the territory. If, as stated in Note No. 293, Mrs. Wood was forcibly expelled, this was because she otherwise refused to leave. It should also be pointed out that the measure of force used was minimal, since Mrs. Wood was merely escorted to the airport and placed on board a Johannesburg-bound aircraft. Moreover, the South African Government is satisfied that adequate opportunity was afforded Mrs. Wood and her husband to safeguard their property and family. Inasmuch as Mrs. Wood and her husband occupied church property and had few possessions beyond the Landrover used by Bishop Wood to depart the territory, the South African Government is of the opinion that the time allowed Mrs. Wood to pack her possessions and safeguard her property was more than adequate. Her refusal to comply with the expulsion order was motivated not by any alleged inadequacy of the notice, but by a determination not to leave until obliged to do so. The South African Government can therefore in no wise agree that the manner of Mrs. Wood's expulsion violated the minimum standard of protection which must be afforded to an individual.

Due note has also been taken of the view of the United States Government that international law requires that an expelling state must accord an individual certain procedural rights, "including provision for adequate notice of the specific reasons for the expulsion and opportunity for the individual (and his or her government) to have a hearing on and respond to allegations underlying the deportation." Whatever the practice of the United States, the South African Government is unable to agree that this is a requirement of international law-more especially in cases where the security of the state is involved. In any case the person primarily concerned was a South African citizen whose wife was in the territory because of the presence of her husband. In regard to the view of the United States Government that the application of the Undesirables Removal Proclamation, 1920, in the territory of South West Africa is illegal under international law, the South African Government wishes to reiterate its well-known position that it does not recognize that there exists in international law any obligation upon it to withdraw its administration from the territory. The premise that it is, in fact, under such an international legal obligation, rests exclusively upon a manifestly unconstitutional decision taken by the United Nations General Assembly on October 27, 1966 (Resolution 2145′ (XXI)). The South African Government cannot accept that the General Assembly was legally competent to take such a decision. The Government has stated previously that it will withdraw from the territory when the latter's inhabitants have exercised their right to self-determination, and this remains its position.

Dept. of State File L/HR.

CSCE Principles

On August 1, 1975, the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe (CSCE) adopted at Helsinki a Declaration on Principles Guiding Relations between Participating States. It was incorporated in the Final Act of the Conference, signed by the United States and the 34 other participating states. The seventh principle of the Declaration is entitled "Respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms, including the freedom of thought, conscience, religion or belief." In it the participating states declare that they will respect human rights and fundamental freedoms, all without distinction as to race, sex, language, or religion; they will promote and encourage the effective exercise of civil, political, economic, social, cultural and other rights and freedoms; they will respect individual freedom to profess and practice religion or belief; they will respect the rights of minorities on their territories; they will recognize the universal significance of and will respect human rights and fundamental freedoms; they will confirm the right of the individual to know and act upon his rights and duties in this field; they will act in conformity with the purposes and principles of the United Nations Charter and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and fulfill their obligations under international agreements by which they may be bound.

In addition, the final Act of the Conference contains a section on "Cooperation in Humanitarian and Other Fields," with provisions on the development of human contacts, as set forth below:

The participating states,

HUMAN CONTACTS

Considering the development of contacts to be an important element in the strengthening of friendly relations and trust among peoples,

Affirming, in relation to their present effort to improve conditions in this area, the importance they attach to humanitarian considerations,

Desiring in this spirit to develop, with the continuance of détente, further efforts to achieve continuing progress in this field

And conscious that the questions relevant hereto must be settled by the states concerned under mutually acceptable conditions,

Make it their aim to facilitate freer movement and contacts, individually and collectively, whether privately or officially, among persons, institutions and organizations of the participating states, and to contribute to the solution of the humanitarian problems that arise in that connection,

Declare their readiness to these ends to take measures which they consider appropriate and to conclude agreements or arrangements among themselves, as may be needed, and

Express their intention now to proceed to the implementation of the following:

(a) Contacts and Regular Meetings on the Basis of Family Ties

In order to promote further development of contacts on the basis of family ties the participating states will favorably consider applications for travel with the purpose of allowing persons to enter or leave their territory temporarily, and on a regular basis if desired, in order to visit members of their families. Applications for temporary visits to meet members of their families will be dealt with without distinction as to the country of origin or destination: existing requirements for travel documents and visas will be applied in this spirit. The preparation and issue of such documents and visas will be effected within reasonable time limits; cases of urgent necessity-such as serious illness or death-will be given priority treatment. They will take such steps as may be necessary to ensure that the fees for official travel documents and visas are acceptable.

They confirm that the presentation of an application concerning contacts on the basis of family ties will not modify the rights and obligations of the applicant or of members of his family.

(b) Reunification of Families

The participating states will deal in a positive and humanitarian spirit with the applications of persons who wish to be reunited with members of their family, with special attention being given to requests of an urgent charactersuch as requests submitted by persons who are ill or old.

They will deal with applications in this field as expeditiously as possible. They will lower where necessary the fees charged in connection with these applications to ensure that they are at a moderate level.

Applications for the purpose of family reunification which are not granted may be renewed at the appropriate level and will be reconsidered at reasonably short intervals by the authorities of the country of residence or destination, whichever is concerned; under such circumstances fees will be charged only when applications are granted.

Persons whose applications for family reunification are granted may bring with them or ship their household and personal effects; to this end the participating states will use all possibilities provided by existing regulations. Until members of the same family are reunited meetings and contacts between them may take place in accordance with the modalities for contacts on the basis of family ties.

The participating states will support the efforts of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies concerned with the problems of family reunification.

They confirm that the presentation of an application concerning family reunification will not modify the rights and obligations of the applicant or of members of his family.

The receiving participating state will take appropriate care with regard to employment for persons from other participating states who take up perma